User panel stuff on forum
  13 posts on 1 page  1
Off Topic
2016-11-29, 15:48
Member
154 posts

Registered:
May 2013
So ZeniMax/Id Software are looking for "Monetization Designer" to work on Quake Champions. Safe to assume micro transactions ahoy.
2016-11-29, 16:56
Member
41 posts

Registered:
Apr 2012
Great news.
They are actually trying to earn a profit from their game so that it can be supported a while after release.
2016-11-29, 17:16
Member
318 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
Awesome..

"Remove 5 seconds from the Quad respawn time - 25¢"
2016-11-30, 09:24
News Writer
1260 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
So they cant make a profit from just selling the game then Rio?
2016-11-30, 12:42
Member
41 posts

Registered:
Apr 2012
Hooraytio wrote:
So they cant make a profit from just selling the game then Rio?

They can make a profit on sales to cover production cost + earnings. But if you want a competitive game that lives longer than 1 year then they need a more steady income stream, period.

I have faith in ID that it will not be any sorts of pay2win but rather "cosmetic" things.
It baffles me that people still freak out over the term. There are plenty of games that make a successful mtx strategy without harming the gameplay.
Take a look at some of the biggest multiplayer titles out there. Dota2, CS:GO, Overwatch etc.
2016-11-30, 14:12
Member
137 posts

Registered:
Feb 2012
rio wrote:

It baffles me that people still freak out over the term. There are plenty of games that make a successful mtx strategy without harming the gameplay.
Take a look at some of the biggest multiplayer titles out there. Dota2, CS:GO, Overwatch etc.


That... is not entirely true. I can't say anything about Dota2 or Overwatch since I've never played them, but CS:GO, while being a commercial success, has arguably suffered in part due to the microtransactions. The whole skin thing attracts a lot of people who care about them more than they do about the game. While it's good for the game's popularity, attracting sponsorship, e.t.c., it also sets certain priorities in development of the game.
Long story short: CS:GO is riddled with bugs and numerous engine-level hitreg and client sync problems, but fixes for these come out like 100 times slower than new skin cases and other monetization items do. In other words, a lot of people feel like because of the enormous income those microtransaction provide, their support takes a lot of dev team time (the team which is small to begin with) which could've otherwise be spent on making the game better. So, one could make an argument that in this case they DO indirectly harm the gameplay . People have been joking for a long time about each new update making some changes to "chickens" and not fixing anything serious.
It can, however, also be argued that the game would've died competitively a long time ago if not for the skins.

(Edited 2016-11-30, 14:15)
“If I wanted you to understand it, I would have explained it better.” (c) Johan Cruyff
2016-11-30, 14:13
Administrator
2025 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
While i only have experience with CS:GO from the modern games mentioned i have no problem with that kind of monetization schemes. However i think QC will have a hard time attracting the same kind of paying player base as it's such an old niche franchise. It's not that the players don't have money (rather the opposite?) but the fact that they probably simply won't spend it on things that are purely cosmetical. I have nothing to back this up though, it's just my gut feeling.

Only thing i would pay for myself - in any game - is perhaps tickets to broadcasted high quality tournaments ala The International.
www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
2016-11-30, 14:16
Administrator
2025 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Drake wrote:
rio wrote:

It baffles me that people still freak out over the term. There are plenty of games that make a successful mtx strategy without harming the gameplay.
Take a look at some of the biggest multiplayer titles out there. Dota2, CS:GO, Overwatch etc.


That... is not entirely true. I can't say anything about Dota2 or Overwatch since I've never played them, but CS:GO, while being a commercial success, has arguably suffered in part due to the microtransactions. The whole skin thing attracts a lot of people who care about them more than they do about the game. While it's good for the game's popularity, attracting sponsorship, e.t.c., it also sets certain priorities in development of the game.
Long story short: CS:GO is riddled with bugs and numerous engine-level hitreg and client sync problems, but fixes for these come out like 100 times slower than new skin cases and other monetization items do. In other words, a lot of people feel like because of the enormous income those microtransaction provide, their support takes a lot of dev team time (the team which is small to begin with) which could've otherwise be spent on making the game better. So, one could make an argument that in this case they DO indirectly harm the gameplay .
It can, however, also be argued that the game would've died competitively a long time ago if not for the skins.

While i'm not working at Valve i have a hard time imagining that they would use the same development resources for the monetization parts as the core gameplay parts. That new skins appear much faster than bug fixes is probably because it's 100x easier to produce and publish that content than to solve the bugs.
www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
2016-11-30, 14:32
Member
137 posts

Registered:
Feb 2012
Ake Vader wrote:

While i'm not working at Valve i have a hard time imagining that they would use the same development resources for the monetization parts as the core gameplay parts. That new skins appear much faster than bug fixes is probably because it's 100x easier to produce and publish that content than to solve the bugs.


true, but then the point still stands though: resources could've been allocated differently I think Valve could have sped up the bugfixing process at the expense of adding new items if they really wanted to (and I don't think popularity would suffer). Valve is a business, though, not an art studio, so it's natural they focus on money first.
Overall, it's just an issue with CS:GO, not monetization in general. I also don't think there's anything wrong with it in itself and if ID will implement it sensibly I'm all for it - more money to sponsor tournaments, for example (as Valve did with CS:GO).
“If I wanted you to understand it, I would have explained it better.” (c) Johan Cruyff
2016-11-30, 16:28
Member
41 posts

Registered:
Apr 2012
I get you point Drake. CS:GO for sure has it issues with the whole ecosystem of skins and it's mostly because they have managed to create an economy around it that facilitates this behavior when you allow people to also sell them for $$$.

And while I do agree that a lot of patches has more content added then bugfixes the fact still stands that Valve and CS:GO is one of the only games that actively takes old maps, fixes and revamps them based on pro player feedback in order to keep the competitive variation up. And this would most likely not be possible without the money they earned from MTX.
2016-12-01, 22:29
News Writer
835 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
They did this with Quake Live don't forget.... In-game advertising and then also monthly subscription for more features etc.

More interesting is their eSports coordinator role... https://jobs.zenimax.com/requisitions/view/1171
2016-12-02, 07:24
News Writer
1260 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
Desired Skills:

Experience coordinating international events

Experience with competitive games

Proficient in rocket jumping

2017-02-17, 05:15
  13 posts on 1 page  1